convince me /pol/arks, why should black people be discriminated against. i want your best and most concrete arguments.
CHECK THEM CUNTS
FUCK THE EU
>>79999781 ok?
Because they're niggers.
>>80000186
lol you failed
You will never trigger article 50
Screenshot this
>>79999330
>>79999330
They shouldn't, everyone should be treated equally as individuals, and not by their race, so no discrimination, but no special treatment either.
>>80001537
how is that an argument for discrimination?
>>79999330
Discrimination should be legal. If people want to discriminate against whites, they have every right in the world to do so. Blacks being discriminated against is just a side-effect of their lack of integration into society and low education levels.
>B-but muh equal rights
Equal discrimination of all peoples = equal rights
>B-but we need equity, not equality. Everyone needs to be on an equal level
Pipe dream, not guaranteed by the constitution (US perspective), communist, &c.
There is literally nothing wrong with discrimination. Any harm it has caused is no greater than the harm of prohibiting it.
>>79999330
>>80000000
Who get?
>>80001829
Its reasonable cause to never relax around blacks.
>>80001829
That based on pure statics alone you are just as likely to be murdered by a segment of that population the is less than 20% of the total.
Meaning you don't go into those neighborhoods that have a high concentration of that group by yourself, thus by discrimination you are actively being safer.
I would not discriminate against an african in africa , but I would discriminate against any foreigner in my nation.
>>80002842
that's fine but what about systematic discrimination of any group, is that ever justifiable.
>>80003288
that's incidental discrimination, you don't go to those neighborhoods because you think of them as dangerous, im talking about specific discrimination, only letting whites get cirtain jobs and go to cirtain things, can that ever be justified?
>>80004056
Yeah it is, a foreigner should not expect to be treated equally as they shouldn't even be allowed here in the first place.
>>79999330
because they as a population refuse to integrate into western society
>>80004511
>79999330
ok, argue that point, why should a foreigner not be let into a (presumably) more prosperous country than their place of origin?
>>80004830
what about the one's that do, then you would be discriminating against a completely innocent person?
>>80001829
>>79999330
Because they belong in Africa
>>80001829
>>80005006
if 99% of blacks murdered and then the government imprisoned 100% of blacks, isn't the 1% who are wrongly imprisoned a huge injustice?
>>80004997
why?
>>80005174
because they were never supposed to come to Europe, only because some globalist and leftist shills said it was okay doens't give them the right
>>79999330
Better safe than sorry
>>80005304
but what is wrong with people migrating?
>>80004056
(1/2)
Of specific groups? Absolutely. We discriminate against people without citizenship on a daily basis. They cannot vote, often they do not get the same tax exemptions or medical benefits as citizens, and usually breaking the law can end in deportation.
As for ambiguously chosen groups, it would appear to be just so long as it is within the bounds of the law. For example, the United States cannot go out tomorrow and say that blacks no longer have a right to vote. Within the COTUS, we have an amendment in place to prevent laws such as that, and to revoke the amendment would require years of hard work as well as an entire paradigm shift in American perception of race. But within the bounds of the United States, it is not unjust to have discrimination of ambiguous groups, within bounds.
For example, men are required to sign up for selective service where women are not even allowed to sign up for it. This is a group (men) systematically being discriminated against (even if the intention is not prejudice), based on a stereotype (although likely valid, men are more fit for battle than women).
Of course, this all depends on what your definition of discrimination is. One could posit, as google does, that discrimination is "the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex." So long as discrimination is unjust, then by definition systematic discrimination is wrong. So if you go by that definition, you are correct trivially. However, if we go for a more broad definition, such as "Unequal treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex," then we get a different story. In this case, almost all people would be for some form of systematic discrimination in some cases. It's just a matter of working it into the law.
>>80005473
>They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
>>80004891
Because it is unsustainable- we should be securing the worlds diversity as opposed to giving into theoried short term gains promised by immigration which themselves are false.
Also immigration makes the premise that the majority of the world is simply unlivable and should be given up on hence allowing them to come here. This idea is rejected.
>>80005613
then why not leave your country to reduce the surplus population?
>>80005475
people are naturally racist. stop creating multicultural shitholes
>>80005503
presume there were no legal barriers, would you think it was wrong if blacks were stripped of cirtain rights due to them simply being "inferior"?
>>80005922
i have no problem with people being racist, i'm racist on some level, it's acting on that racism that i care about.
>>80005762
Surplus population? My nation is in need of national socialist Germany tier birth rate policies.
Not only should we cut off immigration but ensure our growth is entirely reliant on birth rates and encourage them as successfully as nat-soc germany did.
This nation has lots of room and going into the future even more as the north opens up more- this will be a nation of 200-300 million european or native canadians- not 50 million europeans and 150 million various foreigner pieces of degeneracy.
>>80006228
you said it was unsustainable, that is purely on population figures, not the origin or race of the population, a population increase is a a population increase either way.
>>80004056
>>80005503
(2/2)
The reason it is so taboo today to discriminate against people on the basis of race (especially minority races) is because of the civil rights movement of the 20th century, as well as fear of fascist regimes. To say that races are truly equal to one another is to be ignorant and dismissing of basic biology. People are inherently different based on their genetics, and this simply cannot be denied. It makes sense to have some basic rights which all people have equally (to a certain extent), but the inherent equality of individuals is simply utter nonsense.
If we truly believe that all races are equal to one another and should be treated without any consideration to genetics, upbringing, or culture, then we must also abolish any sexist discrimination (restrooms, selective service, maternity leave, &c), any positively based racial benefits (affirmative action, diversity laws in the workplace, wage laws), as well as the abolishment of many other generally accepted government social programs. Discrimination is prevalent in almost every legal system, and nearly everyone adheres to this and accepts it.
>>80005931
If there were no legal barriers, we would have no rights. The sovereign grants us rights. In a state of nature, as Thomas Hobbes puts it, "life is nasty, brutish and short," and society is a war of "every man against every man." It would absolutely not be wrong to strip blacks of certain rights, as we would not be living in a state in which rights hold any values. Laws are put in place specifically to protect people's rights. The only way to justifiably take away people's rights is to do so through the laws, without barriers. And no, I do not believe there would be anything wrong, within the workings of the law, to have a monopoly on granting rights to certain individuals an barring them from others, for any reason.
>>80006607
*to do so through the laws, with all its barriers.
>>80006607
that's an argument for ending discrimination, not enforcing it, and to rephrase my question, would it be wrong for a race to be treated as a second class citizen.
>>80006431
It's unsustainable globally and racially- the departed nation has lost likely one of its better citizens while the host nations people will in time go extinct.
It's degeneracy brought upon by the jew and this system will be challenged once again.
>>80006030
>it's acting on that racism that i care about
everything is considered racism these days. even defending your own communities against what can only be called a great migration of cultures that can't be juxtaposed with our own way of life
>>80007104
why does it matter that a race would vanish through breeding?
>>80007272
not sjw racism, actual racism, treating people differently purely based on race.
>>80004358
>only letting whites get cirtain jobs
No, barring someone from a certain career based on race is ridiculous. That does NOT mean it's acceptable to force a private business to not discriminate. Nor is it justified to force any industry to comply with hiring quotes or 'diversity standards' based on race (or anything for that matter).
>go to cirtain things
Completely depends on the 'thing': private event, private business, private land, private housing development, whatever should NOT be forced by law to not discriminate based on race (or anything).
What we're talking about here is the state (federal, state, local) passing laws that FORCE private citizens to not discriminate based on race (and other protected groups). Once it becomes known that some particular business is discriminating, the community can decide for themselves to boycott, protest and inform everyone else that these people are some prejudice cunts, but the state should have no part in it. There should still be consequences, just not legal ones where you can be thrown in a cage for choosing not to do business/associate with people based on protected criteria decided by a bureaucratic government.
>>79999330
>convince me /pol/arks, why should people driving on the road notice a pot hole while driving and drive around it, why should pot holes be discriminated against. i want your best and most concrete arguments.
>>80001829
How is it not?
If I showed that statistically you were more likely to end up in a car crash if you drove on the wrong side of the road, would you act like a giant autist and say "how is that an argument for me to not drive on the wrong side of the road?"
>>80007491
bare in mind i'm talking on a governmental and judicial level, not the decision of a private citizen.
>>80007365
uh it matters because it's natural to want to preserve ones own tribe- social darwinism.
Preserving ones own tribe/people is a much better goal than whatever the goals are of the immigration proponent- their goals entirely lie in materialism and individualism alone.
>>80007493
no, it's avoiding driving an wet roads because some have black ice, not all black people are pot-holes
>>80007454
why shouldn't we treat people different if they are different?
>>80007540
you are more likely to be shot in a household that has a gun, should the government ban guns? i don't mind if you choose to avoid guns to mitigate risk but the government should have no say in it.
>>80007849
yes, my goals and ideals lie totally in materialism and individualism, so i guess that's where our divide in rational lies.
>>80006856
(1/2)
My argument is not for ending discrimination, my argument is that if someone is FOR ending discrimination, then they also must accept many other undesirable consequences.
Also, I do not believe it is wrong for a race to be treated second class to other races. One argument people could put forth is that the circumstances of your birth should not be determinant of your future standing in life. To this I say, why not? Nobody ever asked to be born, and nobody should have any specific benefits whatsoever from birth, other than the rights and laws of their sovereign. If anything, one should be thankful they were born into a sovereign rather than a state of nature. It is obviously not ideal to be born into certain situations, but rather than try to put everyone on the same level, perhaps we should try, instead, to bring everyone to AT LEAST a certain level. In a truly equal and equitable society, as many modern liberals describe to be ideal today, no one would receive benefits which they did not deserve. The problem does not lie in the undeserving, the problem lies in the deserving not receiving their fair share. If, to take an extreme example, whites were taxed 5% and blacks were taxed 10%, simply because blacks are second class citizens, this is not an example of unfair treatment of blacks. Instead, this is an example of extreme treatment towards whites. But one would cry, equally, of inequality if in fixing this issue, we tax blacks 5% and whites 2.5%. How others are treated should not be any concern to how you specifically are treated. As long as you specifically are treated fairly, you have no grounds to complain.
>>80007931
people over 6'2" should not be allowed in theme parks, why? because they are different and should be treated differently. race is arbitrary, there are no defined race lines and your race does not predestine you as a person, it may increase your likelihood of being cirtain ways but it does not guarantee it.
>>80008209
i believe people should be treated as individuals and should not have a disadvantage or advantage due to arbitrary and unrelated circumstances of birth.
>>80008308
>race is arbitrary
yes but culture isn't. and according to sjw new racism is focused on culture and cultural determinism. now if people have different cultures and are predetermined by them to a certain degree, then why can't we treat people differently?
>>79999330
Name literally one way they make a nation better by being in it.
Literally everywhere they go - America, Canada, Britain, Germany, fucking China or Japan, the country's level of rape, murder, theft, and drug trafficking spikes everywhere they are present.
>>80008603
>if people have different cultures and are predetermined by them to a certain degree
but they aren't, if they were born into a shit culture then they may work to overcome that disability, if people hold regressive ideas (Muslims, feminists etc) they should be treated accordingly, however simply because someone was born in an area or culture where those ideas are held they should not be held to the same standards as those who hold them.
>>80008754
so go to Syria and reduce their level of rape per capita.
Nobody should be discriminated against
but if you're in a dog park and only the rottweilers are biting other dogs you might want to keep your puppies away from those types
>>80009089
i'm fine with that
>>80006856
>>80008209
(2/2)
To continue my point, there are many other examples of discrimination based on circumstances of birth which no one screams inequality to. Simply by being born into a rich, poor, Catholic, Protestant, Mormon, Muslim, Jewish, Atheist, white, black, Hispanic, Asian, urban, rural, or any other variety of situations, even in a society of perfectly equal rights, it is extremely unreasonable to expect that people born into each of these circumstances would lead equal lives, or be on equal standing to others. And these are all things which the government can rightly control. Granted, the United States government does not come forward and specifically say those born into certain circumstances will have separate rights from those born into other circumstances, but it does not mean that it is unjustifiable to do so.
One must consider the idea of a "Veil of Ignorance," that the most just laws are those which are created without knowing your standing in the subsequent society. In other words, if you make a law stating that "all X must be executed," this law would be most just if one would not know if they are part of "X" or not. Obviously, the veil of ignorance is almost impossible in most cases, but it is important to think about. If you have two groups of people, X and Y, with X inherently superior to Y, and you do not know which group you stand in, it would be incredibly reasonable to give certain discriminatory laws between X and Y, depending on this superiority or inferiority. For example, considering the same X and Y groups, let us say that there are two hospitals, both with limited capacity, but Hospital A has a higher expectancy of survival than B. If you had to choose who goes to what hospital, what would you choose? I do not doubt that you would choose that the two groups go to these hospitals randomly, but it would be an extreme debate, and certainly something which is worth arguing about, and CERTAINLY not an obvious decision.
>>80008460
To have this kind of logic means you also have to throw out every single piece of literature and study into group psychology, and ignore every statistically provable trend of pretty much anything.
Yes, every one person you come into contact with should be treated as an individual but for macro scale decisions - ie immigration which could have disastrous effects on communities, culture, and opens advents for split loyalties - it can be disastrous.
>>80008460
Good luck with that :^)
>>80008308
>>80008460
>race is arbitrary
Maybe the way society draws racial lines is arbitrary and you could argue the ol' "race is a social construct" based on that, but there is a biological component to race that is definitely NOT arbitrary and is, by every metric, significant.
>>80008960
>but they aren't, if they were born into a shit culture then they may work to overcome that disability
but migrants from shit nations don't work. they go to nations with the best benefits so they can enjoy benefits and do no labour. they don't want to be treated for ideas that can be considered regressive to us because the cultural clash prevents them from integrating.
>>80009153
that's why i mentioned that only arbitrary factors of birth should be disregarded, obviously wealth is an un-chosen factor of birth but there is no way to fix that other than wealth redistribution which steps all over personal freedoms. however the state should see all people, regardless of wealth as equal.
>>80009347
if one migrant does work, just one then they should be given the benefit of the doubt, anything less is unacceptable, why not just discriminate against lazy people, rapists and murderers, regardless of origin and race?
>>79999330
It's not about discriminating against blacks.
Discrimination is:
>affirmative action
>presidents excusing you for assaulting a lawful citizens
>Being praised for disrupting public life
>Getting excused for being "poor" and "uneducated", without considering reversed causation.
We should actually not discriminate.
We should treat them how they act.
>>80009443
>however the state should see all people, regardless of wealth as equal.
Why? Who told you this?
>>80009643
>if one migrant does work, just one then they should be given the benefit of the doubt
i agree and all the rest can fuck off, and just because one shitskin has a job and actually pays taxes that doens't mean we should have open borders and destroy our functioning nation states and throw away thousand of years of progress just because muh new age globalism meme
>>80009342
let's say pay was standardized based on IQ (dumb idea i know but bare with me) , for convenience the government decides to separte it along race lines instead of each individual's IQ due to the statistical correlation between race and IQ. this means that all black people with higher than average IQ have been served an injustice and i believe that is wrong.
>>80009847
of course not but should "shitskins" be treated differently in the eyes of the law? no, because then those that defy said average will be treated unfairly.
>>80007978
>you are more likely to be shot in a household that has a gun
Only true if you count suicides.
>>80010124
it was an example to demonstrate the importance (or lack thereof) regarding statistics when it comes to individual rights.
>>79999330
>convince me /pol/arks, why should black people be discriminated against
Non-Whites do not belong in White countries.
Prove me wrong.
>>80010100
the law should be applied equally to the people, migrants that increase rape and crime are not the people
>>79999999
>>80000000
>>80009443
>>80009724
And on top of that, doesn't that mean, as >>80009705 says, that there should be no affirmative action? No selective service? No diversity in the workplace laws? When we talk about citizens of a state, what do we value? I'm not arguing that race OUGHT to be valued, but it would not be an invalid or inherently unjust mean.
You asked for "our best and most concrete arguments."
>the state should see all people, regardless of wealth as equal.
>i believe people should be treated as individuals and should not have a disadvantage or advantage due to arbitrary and unrelated circumstances of birth.
>race is arbitrary, there are no defined race lines
>my goals an ideals lie totally in materialism and individualism
None of these are sufficient or concrete. There is no objective reason NOT to discriminate based on race, or any other arbitrary measurement.
>>80010292
why draw the lines between natives and immigrants? why not just draw the line between normal people and rapists and criminals?
>>80010274
i think people belong wherever they may be useful.i'd prefer an Indian doctor as a neighbor than a chav.
this got me thinking
should countries have a clear immigrant population cap?
>>80010401
because they live in our countries, if they want to live here they should contribute. we never should have given them national status anyway, they should have stayed foreign workers because it's easier to send them back.
>>80010372
not quite sure where you're coming from there, tad conveluted comment. i just think people should be treated as individuals, you are not going to convince anyone by simply saying "i don't have to convince you, you have to convince me" that just goes nowhere, i simply asked you to help me understand where you are coming from.
>>79999330
all men are rapists.
>>80010557
that'd be one way of doing it sure.
>>80010709
what about the ones that do contribute, you are just treating them unfairly by lumping them in with the assholes by treating them all as a single demographic.
>>80010761
me are more likley to be rapists so all men should take anti rape classes. sounds familiar.
>>80010925
>what about the ones that do contribute
they can stay and since that would decrease their total number they would integrate faster. win win. Trust if i could expel dutch criminals, but i can't and they are still my own people but foreign criminals should fuck off. Our countries shouldn't be some free theme park where everyone is welcome and can enjoy themselves
>>80010993
/pol/tards and feminazis are the same, 2 sides of the same stupid coin, both working on emotional tribalistic levels.
both completely impermeable to logic and reason.
>>80011257
say that again once you meet your cancerous diaspora
>>80011208
so why say, "we should boot out all these immigrants, they cause crime and rape" when you can just say "we should boot out all these criminals and rapists, they cause crime and rape"
>>80010759
Is it still difficult to tell after all that? If that's all you want, to know where we are coming from, I'll try to make it simple for you.
1. Circumstances of birth DO matter. People are too quick to believe the human rights statutes of the U.N. as plain fact, even though there is no evidence to back it up.
2. Races AREN'T equal. Genetics makes a difference. We treat breeds of dogs differently, and we know they act differently. It is not wrong to treat types of people differently because they act differently.
3. The veil of ignorance doesn't just mean "but it would suck if you were born black in this society :( ". It is a much more complicated issue which is not obvious at first glance.
4. Discrimination by individuals is a free and valid use of their rights, regardless of who is being discriminated against.
5. Discrimination laws ARE very common, only they are not as clear as people may think. And people depend on them more than they expect.
>>80011257
lol how are * feminazis * tribalistic?
>>80011330
im guessing that's the language barrier rearing it's ugly head as i have no fucking clue what you're saying.
>>80011469
all of those are fine, but discrimination laws that rely on averages are wrong as they treat those who are exceptions of the average unfairly.
>>80011554
it's the difference between men and women for them as the difference between whites and errybody else is to you.
>>80010485
>i think people belong wherever they may be useful
I think the races being separated would be even more useful for the survival of the White race.
>i'd prefer an Indian doctor as a neighbor than a chav.
I would prefer a White-only nation instead of a multicultural one.
Now explain to why your feelings (which will result in the extinction of the White race) trump my feelings (which will result in the survival of the White race).
>>80011416
natives belong in this country, immigrants don't. that said, i would like to expel all criminals but that's not going to happen any time.
>>80011559
referring to diaspora effect. turks for instance in the netherlands are extremly nationalistic and hate on the netherlands if that suits them.
>>80011822
i simply don't value the white race as a thing, i would prefer if would could all just fuck and fuck and fuck until we were all a kind of oringy yellow colour. i care about the preservation of western values, nothing else.
>>80012030
of course you can't deport all criminals as no country would take the ones native to your country but you should try and deport all foreign born criminals simply to spread the load.
>>80009962
>let's say pay was standardized based on IQ (dumb idea i know but bare with me)
not a good idea, but baring with you...
>for convenience the government
already have a problem with this, but..baring
>decides to separte it along race lines instead of each individual's IQ due to the statistical correlation between race and IQ.
So it's purely racial discrimination, no need to add the extra step of "based on IQ" then...
>this means that all black people with higher than average IQ have been served an injustice and i believe that is wrong.
Great, you've imagined a scenario where racial discrimination seems unjust..
...except if a private citizen who owned a private business decided the exact same thing, it would be acceptable. The difference being that a private individual should not be forced to be "right" (a concept far more subjective than race) and force to follow the standards of righteousness set by a state.
>>80012045
>i simply don't value the white race as a thing,
So why must your values (that will cause the extinction of the White race) trump our values (that want to see the White race exist)?
>i would prefer if would could all just fuck and fuck and fuck until we were all a kind of oringy yellow colour.
That's White genocide.
Because you only wish it for the White race in White countries.
Even if you got your wish and the White race was blended out of existence, non-Whites the world over would still exist.
Yours is inherently an anti-White and pro-White genocide opinion.
>i care about the preservation of western values, nothing else.
Western values are White values.
Without Whites there would be no Western values.
Those Western values will cease to exist when the White race ceases to exist.
>>80012392
i have no qualms with a private citizen choosing to discriminate, only the government.
>>80011554
feminazi focus on their gender, you focus on the color of your nipple.
>>80011703
Suppose races X and Y make up 50/50 of the population. If 80% of crimes are committed by X, and 20% are committed by Y, and you wish to prevent crime, how do you do so?
1. Regulate the actions of X.
2. Regulate the actions of Y.
3. Regulate the actions of X and Y equally.
4. Regulate the actions of X and Y, but use 80% of effort to regulating X and 20% to regulating Y.
5. Regulate specifically those who have already committed the crime.
6. Ignore the distinction between X and Y, and find some other means to determine who is likely to commit crimes, and regulate their actions
7. Some combination of 1-5 and 6.
8. Regulate everyone's actions (similar to 3, but a subtle difference).
9. Do nothing.
Replace regulating with incarcerating, deporting, increasing education levels of, giving tax breaks to, or whatever other solution you would like to posit.
This is not as simple of an issue as people make it out to be. We can't reach any sort of real discussion until we accept that it is not invalid to believe that discrimination is not inherently wrong. If we do not accept even the possibility discriminatory laws, we reject points 1, 2, 4, and 7 (to a certain extent).
>>80001019
No, they didn't. They succeeded in showing how useless and powerless the EU really is.
>>80012398
no by all i meant the human race as a whole, their would be no caucasians left, no africans left, no asians left, no lations left. just humans.
my value's aren't more important than yours, i was asking to be converted to your side, for you to argue you points to the extent i agree with your values, so far you have failed.
also if that is your definition of genocide then sure i'm pro genocide of all races, but that is one weak definition of genocide.
>>80011703
>>80012701
I suppose I forgot about another choice as well. That is, regulating the actions of X and Y, but to whatever percentage points you wish (A% and B% respectively).
The hard truth is that we need to use whatever data is at our disposal to protect the commonwealth. And if that means potentially harming or giving benefits to statistical outliers, then it doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. It may still, sometimes, be the best option. Sometimes this means that we need to watch for when the statistics speak.
>>80011330
>muh feels.
>>80011774
That doesn't make any sense, feminists are marxist planted seeds to introduce another front in which a race is to turn inward against eachother and make it easier for a foreign element to infiltrate.
It's not tribalistic but materialistic as it panders to a womans * wants * in the belief she isn't getting a * fair share * of the pie - just like communists.
>>80012597
you must know very little of either ethnic nationalism or feminism
>>80012701
i know it would be less efficient but i would prefer 5 with a small amount of 8, it would cause more crimes and reduce productivity, however, having everyone in individual 3ft cells being fed wallpaper paste may be the most efficient method of regulating human existence but i doubt you would endorse it. I believe in the rights of the individual even if those rights are a detriment to society.
>>80013210
you just called marxists materialistic, i think the horse-shoe theory is hitting you right in the face.
>>80012983
>no by all i meant the human race as a whole,
There is no such thing as the human race. It is the human species.
> their would be no caucasians left, no africans left, no asians left, no lations left. just humans.
Wrong. There would be one mutt mixed race.
You'd willingly destroy every single race (that's genocide btw) in your delusional hopes of peace and harmony.
The problem is, you're focusing only on the White race.
>my value's aren't more important than yours,
That's right. Your values are inherently destructive. My values are pro-survival.
>i was asking to be converted to your side,
You have to stop wanting to destroy the White race then.
>for you to argue you points to the extent i agree with your values, so far you have failed.
Because you feel that it is perfectly acceptable to subject the White race to genocide.
>also if that is your definition of genocide then
It's not just my definition. It's the UN's definition.
How would you feel if the Nazi's instead of using gas chambers forced every Jew to breed with blacks at the point of a gun, thus making the next generation of Jews a different race?
Would that be acceptable to you since the Jews were only blended out of existence?
>then sure i'm pro genocide of all races,
Why do you feel the genocide of any race let alone all races is acceptable?
>but that is one weak definition of genocide.
Yet that definition is used in the courts to convict people of genocide.
>>80013471
marxists are materialistic and individualist, quasi libertarian with their end goal of a world with no borders or state
>>80013249
grate argument, you really proved me wrong.
/pol/ is an autistic male version of Tumblr and everyone knows it.
both miss use statistics and grotesque overly simplistic generalization.
you're also terribly hipocrite and have a tendency to go use ad hominem attack to deal with opposite views or rational debate.
the truth is both of you need those hugboxes/circle jerk because you know that your ridiculous opinion wouldn't survive outside of them.
then the courts have a shit definition of genocide or genocide isn't a bad thing, i don't think that a race disappearing because the members of that race willingly breed their race out of existence is a bad thing. i think your white genocide is acceptable as no-one's right to self determinism is breached.
>>80013856
/pol/ isn't a political party
>>80014100
neither is Tumblr
>>80013845
>In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.
>>80014075
>then the courts have a shit definition of genocide or genocide isn't a bad thing
That's your argument in favor of White genocide?
That the courts have a shit definition or that genocide is a good thing?
>i don't think that a race disappearing because the members of that race willingly breed their race out of existence is a bad thing.
Well then, I guess there was nothing wrong with the holocaust since there's nothing wrong with wiping a race from the face of the planet forever.
>i think your white genocide is acceptable as no-one's right to self determinism is breached.
But the Jews being exterminated was a bad thing?
If the black race and only the black race was destroyed that would be acceptable as well?
>>80014484
i don't give a fuck that the Nazis wanted to erase the Jews from the earth, i care that they gassed 10 million innocent people, i care because it was fucking mass murder, not because of the race dynamic.
>>80014317
I don't base my entire political stance on memes or /pol/ hence tumblr nor affiliating with /pol/ belong in my political vocabulary but apparently they do in yours.
>>80014676
>i don't give a fuck that the Nazis wanted to erase the Jews from the earth,
And you don't give a fuck that Jews are erasing Whites from the face of the earth either.
>i care that they gassed 10 million innocent people,
>i care because it was fucking mass murder,
But there's nothing wrong with genocide, remember?
If the genocide is gassing or blending out of existence, the race is just as dead.
>not because of the race dynamic.
So you're moral because you want every race to be subject to genocide?
But if you chose only one race (say the Jews) to be subject to a genocide by any means possible, that would be wrong?
>>80014484
that one of the most amusing form of primitive tribalism i'v read her.
are you planing to breed your sister to keep your blood line pure ?. or maybe you already do.
do you know how many "pure whites" there are out there ?. particularly in 'murrica.
>>80014732
just pointing out the resemblance between the two places.
obviously, not everyone in ether in these hugbox have exactly the same opinions, but the trend is still there.
>>80014348
Derived from appealing to the persons wants, as if these means would get him a fairer share of the pie.
Hence national socialism is much superior to marxism as national socialism is actually rooted in collective goals such as security of the race as opposed to materialistic wants
>>80015039
because we are using your definition of genocide then no i dont care about a race vanishing, i don't care that it was the murder of millions of jews and eastern Europeans, i care that it was the murder of millions of people. i don't care about the genocide, i care about the method of the genocide.
>>80015279
i believe materialism and individualism are superior to collectivism
>>80015770
>i care that it was the murder of millions of people. i don't care about the genocide, i care about the method of the genocide
Wait, so in your ethical system you'd have no problem with say, entire species of animals being wiped out forever by man as long as none of those animals were innocent?
>>80015770
>because we are using your definition of genocide
Again, this isn't just my definition. It's the UN's.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_Convention#Definition_of_genocide
Article 2 of the convention defines genocide as
...any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
—Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Article 2
>then no i dont care about a race vanishing,
Well I do. Now you have to convince me to support the genocide of not only my race but every race like you are advocating.
>i don't care that it was the murder of millions of jews and eastern Europeans, i care that it was the murder of millions of people.
But you want an entire race (the White race) to cease to exist. That's billions of White people.
Not to mention the fact that every race (billions more people) would cease to exist if you had your way.
>i care about the method of the genocide.
Why? If its gas chambers or forced blending out of existence the race is just as dead.
You certainly don't care about the fact that there is a recognized genocide of the White race in south africa.
You certainly don't care about the murder of whites by non-Whites in White countries.
You certainly don't care that there is a program of genocide via blending and replacement.
You are an anti-White that is enabling and supporting the genocide of the White race.
You are evil. Kill yourself you faggot.
>>80016310
i presume animal's innocence as they lack the mental capacity to act outside of instinct but yes if 100% of badgers mauled toddlers and sent spam email then i'd be all for their destruction. and if a cirtain species of badger was breeding with all other badgers to the point of that specific species vanishing then i would have no problem with that either.
>>80016426
oh my fucking god can you really be this dumb? if all white people choose to fuck black people so only halfcast babies are born then the white race will cease to exist but the individual members of the white race will not be affected at all. no-one will die, no-one will be unhappy, no-one will be forced into doing something they want to do, therefore i have no problems with it. yes the white race will be gone but it's not like those whites who did the interbreeding will die or something, they'll be fine.
>>80015277
there actually isn't a resemblance, this is a place of true free speech as opposed to tumblr which has rules that would shut down oppressed ideals such as national socialism
>>80016426
>You certainly don't care about the fact that there is a recognized genocide of the White race in south africa.
dunno much about that but if anyone is harmed then i have a problem with it
You certainly don't care about the murder of whites by non-Whites in White countries.
>i have a problem with anyone being murdered anywhere so yes i do have a problem with this.
>You certainly don't care that there is a program of genocide via blending and replacement.
bingo mother fucker
im not evil, i'm a rational and compassionate human being who hasn't let the poison that circulates here infiltrate my brain, i gave you a chance, i gave you an opportunity to show me how you were right but you didn't. you spun your swastika shaped wheels in the dirt and looked like a retard in the process.
>>80017425
but they both have black skin so a race based discrimination wouldn't show any preference towards the kind, normal black man.
>>80017265
thisplace is "free speach" because you don't own it, go look for opposit opinion on stormfrong
>>80017066
>oh my fucking god can you really be this dumb?
Said the faggot that supports White Genocide.
> if all white people choose to fuck black people so only halfcast babies are born then the white race will cease to exist but the individual members of the white race will not be affected at all.
And yet the second the last White person dies the White race will cease to exist.
I am just as opposed to genoDEATH as I am genoCIDE.
>no-one will die,
Except the White race.
>no-one will be unhappy,
Except those who wish the White race to exist.
>no-one will be forced into doing something they want to do,
Except you are forcing the White race to cease to exist. You said you want the entire White race to be blended out of existence. The only way you'll get that is with force or eventually a bit longer though forced multiculturalism.
>>80017414
>dunno much about that but if anyone is harmed then i have a problem with it
The White race as a whole is being harmed. You are supporting destroying everything the White race was, is and will be.
>bingo mother fucker
And that's why you're a genocidal anti-White.
>im not evil,
Yes, you are.
> i'm a rational and compassionate human being
Who wants the White race to cease to exist through genocide.
>who hasn't let the poison that circulates here infiltrate my brain,
Said the person who literally wants the White race to cease to exist.
> gave you a chance, i gave you an opportunity to show me how you were right but you didn't. you spun your swastika shaped wheels in the dirt and looked like a retard in the process.
Go fuck yourself you anti-White genocidal bastard.
If you really think that wanting the White race to exist is being a Nazi, fine, I'm a Nazi.
And given the chance, I'd gladly throw anti-White fuckers like you into the gas chamber to save my race from the genocide you're imposing on it.
>>80017986
>go look for opposit opinion on stormfrong
Which is ironic because Stormfront has an opposing views section where anti-Whites are allowed to post.
The most convincing argument would be advising you to spend a day in their natural habitat,but then again,we don't want you dead.
>>80017066
>if all white people choose to fuck black people so only halfcast babies are born then the white race will cease to exist but the individual members of the white race will not be affected at all.
Well that's obviously not true, they'll be greatly affected. That sort of massive shift cannot happen in a vaccum
>no-one will die
people always die due to massive cultural shifts
>no-one will be unhappy,
that faggot you're arguing with probably will be
plus some other white faggots, probably.
>no-one will be forced into doing something they want to do, therefore i have no problems with it. yes the white race will be gone but...they'll be fine.
I suppose as long as everyone's a consenting adult and agrees then nothing they do can be a bad idea.
>>80018048
the white race isn't a person, it's a demographic, i'm not going to endorse the restriction of rights to protect an arbitrary demographic.
>>79999330
There niggers
>>80018322
it's a hypothetical situation that erases the white erase in one generation, assuming everyone was consenting there would be no problem.
>>80017986
What this realm of free speech proves is that our ideology survives it and even dominates- while the others shrivvle and fail.
if your ideals can't survive a realm of free speech like this then chances are that ideal needs to be replaced by ones that do.
>>80019605
there are plenty classical liberals on 4chan friend. do you find it a coincidence that all the greatest minds in history held this position?
>>80019930
>all the greatest minds in history held this position
[citation needed]
>>80020086
Tesla, Einstein, isembard, newton, Plato, Socrates need i go on?
>>80019930
The greatest minds in history seem to have been altered by the history writing the history books effect to make them seem like they are on this modern establishments side. I have no doubt many would be yelling * jesus christ niggers and kikes have run amok* at this modern society
>>80020659
* winners writing the history books
>>80020659
the only successful societies have been based in liberal ideals (namely capitalism) and therefore they are the only societies that have preserved their greatest achievements and teachings.
>>80020741
no, i prefer "history writing the history books" XD
>>80020478
I didn't mean quoting some great people at me,I meant presenting proof that they,in fact,held a liberal ideology.
>>79999330
I would start here, OP: http://thealternativehypothesis.org/
Has loads of well-cited and well-written articles on the subject.
>>80021240
forgive me if i don't i've been nursing this thread for 4 hours and have yet to sleep despite the fact that it is nearly 5am
>>80021390
Well then if you are too sleepy to back up your statements with evidence,you should strongly consider going to bed. With that mindset your posts are useless anyway.
>>80021058
Actually National Socialism was to be the evolution of western civilization as capitalism and related liberal ideas became clear as failures. We could begin to see the erosion of our race primarily in u.s.a and that this could not be allowed to continue or grow.
This struggle for racial existence continues to this day and thanks to the internet has a good rebound in strength of which not seen since its beginning.
>>80021546
agreed, night /pol/ you have entertained me, i may return to delve further into what you believe.
